Tag Archives: regulation

Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Posted on by
Reply

It just gets better and better. Hillary Clinton has released a “FAQ” about her emails and her destruction of a significant fraction of them. Byron York, writing in The Washington Examiner, had some thoughts about them.

One of the FAQ questions Clinton posed concerned whether any of her emails were under subpoena at the time they were destroyed.

The emails that Clinton chose not to keep were personal emails—they were not federal records or even work-related—and therefore were not subject to any preservation obligation under the Federal Records Act or any request. Nor would they have been subject to the subpoena—which did not exist at the time….

Except that

The subpoena to which Clinton referred was issued March 4, 2015, after the committee learned that Clinton kept her emails on a separate, secret server. Clinton seems to be confirming that she destroyed her email records (and all backups, according to her attorney) in early December, which would be three months before the Benghazi committee subpoena. So Clinton’s argument is: there’s no way I was subject to a subpoena because I destroyed everything before the subpoena was issued.

Putting aside the question of whether Clinton’s emails were already covered by an earlier subpoena—Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC] maintains they were—there is still the question of whether Clinton, all along, had a legal obligation to preserve her emails and hand them over to Congress. And on that question, there seems no doubt Clinton was legally required to do just that—and despite that obligation destroyed the emails anyway.

On September 20, 2012, nine days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Clinton asking for “all information…related to the attack on the consulate.” The letter told Clinton, “In complying with this request, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees, and representatives acting on your behalf.” The letter specified emails as documents covered by the request.

The letter was clear. In response, the State Department produced not a single email to or from Clinton. The world now knows, of course, that Clinton did in fact possess emails covered by the request and did not turn them over.

Even if Clinton’s argument that her personal emails were somehow not covered by the Letter, the subpoena, or the Federal Records Act and related legislation holds water, how can we know Clinton destroyed only personal correspondence, correspondence that “were not federal records or even work-related” as she claims? We can’t know. Clinton destroyed the evidence.

It’s all the more important that Congress lay hands on her servers, hard drives, and other storage media, and do a proper forensic investigation.

Freedom to Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

Four men already had been convicted of murder in southeastern China when a fifth person confessed to the crime. But when lawyers demanded to review case documents to clear the men’s names, the court stonewalled. So the lawyers unfurled banners outside the venue.

They protested for days, alongside social activists who insulted the top judge, and uploaded pictures online.
…
Authorities say these lawyers have strayed far beyond their professional role into illegal activism aimed at sabotaging the country’s legal system. …

Since late May, police across China have detained and called in at least 215 rights lawyers and social activists, most of them during the past week or so. State propaganda has kicked into high gear to denounce them as rabble-rousers, criminal gangs, profit-seeking opportunists.

Wisconsin’s John Doe persecutions have been struck by that state’s Supreme Court. We’ll see how long that lasts before our own Left starts up again.

In the meantime, our own national Left’s loudly protected IRS continues to persecute Americans: those who dare to speak contrary to the Left’s approved speech—all those exposures of personal and personal tax information, all those stonewalls of tax status applications for particular groups who would dare speak contrary to the Left’s approvals. The same IRS continues to refuse to return seized funds to those from whom the money was…confiscated…under patently false pretenses, even after this IRS said they would stop the confiscations.

There’s Science

Posted on by
Reply

…and there’s…science.

The Environmental Protection Agency for years has issued costly clean air rules based, in part, on two ’90s-era studies linking air pollution with death.

But, critics say, the same agency has stymied efforts to access the data behind them.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy thinks that suppression is entirely jake [emphasis added in the summary of her position].

For its part, the EPA has argued that releasing the data could compromise confidential personal information, and that it didn’t have access to all the research anyway, among other issues. The agency made an effort to contact the original institutions behind the studies in 2013, but Republicans say they again would not hand over everything.

There’s so much wrong with that, so much that’s wholly dishonest. For starters, what rule-making data has personal information among them? The data clearly were aggregated and stripped of personal information, since they were gathered by responsible researchers. The data clearly were aggregated and stripped of personal information, also, because such information is completely irrelevant to the studies for which they were collected and would only have cluttered the data.

Then, on what basis is EPA making rules when they don’t have all the underlying data? Is this another case of We Know Best, we don’t need no stinkin’ data?

To add insult to her disingenuosity, McCarthy added this to her testimony in front of the House Science Committee:

The EPA totally supports both transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process, but the bill I’m afraid I don’t think will get us there. I don’t actually need the raw data in order to develop science, that’s not how it’s done. … I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public.

Wow. “I don’t actually need raw data….” We don’t need no stinkin’ data. And the transparency bit that McCarthy so fatuously claimed: she’ll be transparent, but only with her chosen few.

She doesn’t know the value of the data to the general public? Here’s all she needs to know about the value of raw data to the general public: her boss—that general public—wants it.

More Government Interference

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is suing BP (of Gulf oil spill fame) for allegedly manipulating Texas energy markets seven years ago. There are two rationales for the case: one is the $48 million fine FERC hopes to collect on trades that produced the magnificent profit of $250 thousand—because, hey we want the money.

The other reason is the government’s use of the Panic of 2008 that began shortly thereafter as a handy excuse for increasing government regulation, ostensibly for “transparency” [emphasis added]

The case represents one facet of a broader push toward greater oversight of physical and financial commodities markets in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and scandals like the 2001 collapse of Enron Corp. The raft of new regulations brought in to increase transparency and prevent market abuse has turned up the pressure on commodities traders, including BP, one of the world’s largest traders of oil and gas. Several Wall Street banks have abandoned or significantly reduced their commodity-trading activities as a result of the increased oversight.

What’s the value of transparency regulation when it destroys the very thing government claims it wants us to be able to watch?

Regulatory Control and the Left

Posted on by
Reply

The Treasury Secretary’s Lawyer (who else?), Antonio Weiss, has a piece on The Wall Street Journal defending the Regulatory State’s control over our financial markets.

He opened it with a strawman.

Some say regulation has killed it, and the answer is to roll back financial reform.

A carefully unnamed “some” in his strawman. He’ll have to play with his dolly without this writer. There is, too, his false assumption in that claim: rolling back financial reform assumes there’s been reform to roll back. There certainly has been a potful of added regulation to our financial markets, all spurred by the Democrats’ Dodd-Frank bill. The bill that created a wholly unaccountable—not even through Congress’ control of purse strings—panel, the CFPB, that decides how financial institutions must behave, even to the point of deciding what business counts as a financial institution that must accept the panel’s decrees.

There’s no reform there. Only the deformation of our free market economy.

And there’s this bit:

The marketplace is rapidly evolving. We must address future challenges without rekindling crises of the past.

Because, gotta have a regulation. After all,

However, market participants report difficulty in executing large orders across various asset classes. And there are concerns over whether the growing ownership of corporate bonds by mutual funds could overwhelm market capacity if there were a sudden wave of redemptions. Moreover, the “flash rally” last Oct 15 in US Treasurys, our deepest and most liquid market, saw yields drop dramatically and snap back within minutes, with no clear catalyst.

Can’t let a free market, a market uncontrolled by Know Betters, find its own solutions to the market niche of asset-class-spanning orders, a niche that couldn’t exist before technology (with the Know Betters have demonstrated they have no capability of managing—see the IRS’ computer “upgrade,” or the security of American’s personal records in the not-so-safekeeping of the OPM) made such a thing possible, much less useful. Can’t let those evil mutual funds—Big Wall Street Business, don’t you know—manage their own finances. No, our Know Betters, who have shown they can’t manage a government budget have to do that. Can’t have an error in software go unpunished by Know Better Regulation rather than leaving it to actual experts and businessmen whose interests lie in prompt correction of such glitches.

The Left, the party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Woodrow Wilson, and Herb Croly, just can’t conceive of Americans getting by without a Federal Regulation to tell us what to do. No matter how foolish the Left’s Regulation.